Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

[LurcioAgain]

BertrandRussell has started an interesting thread in Chat asking women who consciously reject the label "feminist" why they do so. One thing that strikes me is a lot of the reasons being given are in fact "straw men", and that maybe a rebutting the straw men thread would be nice.

Aim of the game (of course I can't control the direction the conversation takes, but I hope people will be on board with this) - keep the conversation couched in reasonably accessible terms, keep the posts short enough not to be overwhelming (so probably only one straw man per post!)

That last post demonstrates the whacky you-don't-know-your-own-mind cult of feminism that I can't bear. You can't be in the club until you admit that you are weak on your own and need the club. It's creepy.

There is nothing wrong with 'slating' a movement, if by that you mean questioning it when something arises that you don't agree with. I am in a union at work because I believe in workers' rights. It doesn't mean I give the union carte blanche to do what it likes in my name.

What you seem to be referring to, thisisnot, is a cult or religion. Don't question the dogma, don't think there might be a better way, don't think that times change or that different people might want different things. Is a woman doctor, or scientist, or lawyer or politician 'conforming to the Patriarchy'?

I would like to say that I disagree with thisis post - it would be awesome if posts by one poster on a feminist topic weren't taken as speaking for all feminists. Thanks.

That's not what innocent was talking about when she said 'slating' Yops (and I think you know that.) She meant people who entirely dismiss the whole thing, so in your analogy a worker sho says 'I think we don't need unions.'
So, stating it again: reject feminism if you want to. But if you are a woman, be aware that without feminism you and any daughter you might have would be living in a world where simply because you are female you are not really a person. You wouldn't have access to education, to professional jobs, to contraception, to the right to vote. You would be a non-person who only exists in relation to a man, so much sk that your only real option in life is to get married, at which point you lose everything - your name (both first and last) your property, your control over your own body. That was the world that existed before feminsists changed it.
So, reject feminism. But don't start spouting that it's about man hating and women being better than men. If you're going to criticise it, learn what it is actually about, which is working to ensure women are no longer treated as non-people. You as a woman benefit from that.

Yops is male, Cailin!

Please don't post stuff like 'and I think you know that'. It makes for a snarky exchange instead of an open discussion of views.

It is perfectly possible to 'slate' modern day trades unionism, if it purports views that were relevant 100 years ago, but is now populated by dinosaurs who no longer understand the modern world, and leaders who have their own agenda for self-aggrandisement and dictatorial attitudes. It does not mean that I fail to recognise the sacrifice and achievements of past unionists, or that I am not thankful. But I can be critical of those who nowadays spout rhetoric without understanding it, or those who's views are 'my way or the highway'.

And this is not a direct parallel to feminism, so don't take this as 'Yops thinks all feminists are dinosaurs/out of touch'. I don't but I recognise that the feminism of, say, Polly Vernon or Caitlin Moran (I don't agree with everything the say or write), is different to some of the posters on here, and I think that there is sometimes an attitude of 'well they aren't doing it right'.

I know that Yonic.

Ah, sorry - this last sentence confused me - "You as a woman benefit from that."

Yops, of course posters critique various current books on feminism - both by journalists and by researchers etc. That's a bit different to commenting on an entire movement, surely?

To go to your analogy then Yops, how would you feel if a bunch of people said "I'm against trade unions because they want to increase the tax rate to 95%." Because that's the situation we find on these boards a lot - women saying "I'm not a feminist because feminists believe..." and then stating an extreme view that in all my years as a feminist I have never once come across in feminist literature. Where is this coming from? This total misrepresentation of what feminism is about?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone deriding the Suffragettes, or the Dagenham Ford workers, or those who introduced the equal pay act or anti-discrimination legislation. Now that would be slating feminism.

What I see on here that get's women's backs up about feminism are comments like 'I think they are institutionalised by the patriarchy'. It implies two things. Firstly, that they aren't as smart or enlightened as you. Secondly, that feminism is the only way to achieve equality in society. I don't see that calling out a comment like that is an attack on feminism. It is simply disagreeing with a certain mindset.

Yops yes. Well put. Your trade union analogy worked well in my view.

The comment from thisisnot had me bristling with irritation.

I can't recall if it's been said on this thread but I also find the complaint that what women are valued most on is our looks or we get told the most important thing is to be pretty and variations on that theme. It bears no resemblance to the real, humdrum world we live in. And frankly is a bit insulting to men and women's intelligence.

Thisisnot's post is also something I disagree with.

In fact it is an illustration of one of the examples I gave at the start of the thread of issues many women have with feminism that are not straw men.

I think it's important to be able to question any school of thought - after all, if the first feminists hadn't questioned the status quo, where would we be?

I find the idea that women are brainwashed by the patriarchal society we live in off-putting - I think most woman recognise that there is a ways to go before gender equality is achieved.

I also don't feel that success goes hand-in-hand with conforming to gender stereotypes. I do think that being successful and being perceived as being successful is so much harder for a woman - I can think of many examples where woman have broken through the glass ceiling only for it to be implied that they are letting down their family by (eg) going back to work too early after maternity leave, working longer hours, using childcare etc in a way that would never be spoken about if they were a man. This is the viewpoint that needs to be challenged, in my opinion.

There's nothing wrong with an individual woman conforming to gender stereotypes.

The gender stereotype for women is being feminine.

People with masculine attributes are not better, more liberated, more ethical or more free thinking than feminine people.

"I can't recall if it's been said on this thread but I also find the complaint that what women are valued most on is our looks or we get told the most important thing is to be pretty and variations on that theme. It bears no resemblance to the real, humdrum world we live in. And frankly is a bit insulting to men and women's intelligence."

The way I see it, constant adverts about make up, hair colour, anti-ageing serum, etc do tell women that their looks are extremely important. Also, if you ever read about women in politics, or in any sort of power, the constant focus is on how they look. Have you not come across that?

In addition, people tend to comment on how pretty little girls are, and how lovely their clothes are, far far more than they comment on boys' looks, which is another thing that gives girls the message that how they look is important.

Yes but that does not then logically follow to the hyperbolic statements which I often see on here about appearance being the only thing of value and the like or girls are told the only important thing is being pretty.

And as for appearance and polticians no one has ever of course commented unfavourably on a male MP. Except they do. For example it is almost impossible for a detractor of Osborne to write anything about him without commenting on his looks (weird baby face is the usual one) or Milliband and they are by no means the only ones.

You know the more I think about it thisisnots comment is patronising and sexist.

I get the impression you don't agree with feminism Lass, is that case?

" I often see on here about appearance being the only thing of value"

Again, you and I have taken away a different interpretation, Lass. I think statements on here are usually about relative importance not the hyperbole that you seem to see.

Thread discussing a book on whether appearance matters. Just skimmed the first page but no hyperbole in sight there.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1288199-Catherine-Hakim-Honey-Money-The-Power-of-Erotic-Capital

Callin I reject many of the sweeping generalisations made by some feminists about how terrible it is being a woman.